This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-286
entitled 'Access To Arts Education: Inclusion of Additional Questions
in Education's Planned Research Would Help Explain Why Instruction Time
Has Decreased for Some Students' which was released on February 27,
2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2009:
Access To Arts Education:
Inclusion of Additional Questions in Education's Planned Research Would
Help Explain Why Instruction Time Has Decreased for Some Students:
GAO-09-286:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-286, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), districts and schools must
demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP) for all students. Because
schools may spend more time improving students’ academic skills to meet
NCLBA’s requirements, some are concerned that arts education might be
cut back. To determine how, if at all, student access to arts education
has changed since NCLBA, the Congress asked: (1) has the amount of
instruction time for arts education changed and, if so, have certain
groups been more affected than others, (2) to what extent have state
education agencies’ requirements and funding for arts education changed
since NCLBA, (3) what are school officials in selected districts doing
to provide arts education since NCLBA and what challenges do they face
in doing so, and (4) what is known about the effect of arts education
in improving student outcomes? GAO analyzed data from the U.S.
Department of Education (Education), surveyed 50 state arts officials,
interviewed officials in 8 school districts and 19 schools, and
reviewed existing research.
What GAO Found:
According to data from Education’s national survey, most elementary
school teachers--about 90 percent--reported that instruction time for
arts education stayed the same between school years 2004-2005 and 2006-
2007. The percentage of teachers that reported that instruction time
had stayed the same was similarly high across a range of school
characteristics, irrespective of the schools’ percentage of low-income
or minority students or of students with limited English proficiency,
or the schools’ improvement under NCLBA. Moreover, about 4 percent of
teachers reported an increase. However, about 7 percent reported a
decrease, and GAO identified statistically significant differences
across school characteristics in the percentage of teachers reporting
that the time spent on arts education had decreased. Teachers at
schools identified as needing improvement and those with higher
percentages of minority students were more likely to report a reduction
in time spent on the arts. Because Education’s survey did not include
questions about why instruction time changed, GAO was not able to
determine the reasons for the disparities its analysis identified. A
new study of NCLBA implementation that Education plans to undertake may
collect information on the uses of instruction time, among other
topics. However, Education has not yet determined if it will collect
information on the reasons instruction time changed for certain groups.
While basic state requirements for arts education in schools have
remained unchanged in most states, state funding levels for arts
education increased in some states and decreased in others, according
to GAO’s survey of state arts officials. Arts education officials
attributed the funding changes to state budget changes to a greater
extent than they did to NCLBA or other factors.
School principals have used several strategies to provide arts
education; however, some struggled with decreased budgets and competing
demands on instruction time, according to those GAO interviewed.
Strategies for maintaining arts education include seeking funding and
collaborative arrangements in the arts community. Competing demands on
instruction time were due to state education agency or school district
actions taken to meet NCLBA proficiency standards.
Overall, research on the effect of arts education on student outcomes
is inconclusive. Some studies that examined the effect of arts
education on students’ reading and math achievement found a small
positive effect, but others found none.
Figure: Photograph of Elementary School Children Participating in Arts
Education.
[Refer to PDF for image]
Source: Art Explosion (image).
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To identify factors that may contribute to changes in access to arts
education for certain groups, GAO recommends that the Secretary of
Education require the department’s planned study of NCLBA
implementation to ask survey respondents why any changes in instruction
time they report occurred. Education generally agreed with our
recommendation.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-286]. For more
information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or
ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Overall Time Spent on Arts Education Changed Little between the 2004-
2005 and 2006-2007 School Years, but Decreases Were More Likely at Some
Schools and the Reasons for the Differences Are Uncertain:
While Basic State Requirements for Arts Education in Schools Have
Remained Constant in Most States, State Funding Levels for Arts
Education Changed:
Since NCLBA, District Officials and School Principals Have Used Several
Strategies to Provide Arts Education; However, Some Struggled with
Decreased Budgets and Competing Demands on Instruction Time:
Overall Research on the Association between Arts Education and Student
Outcomes Is Inconclusive:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Scope:
Methodology:
Appendix II: Average Amount of Instruction Time Elementary School
Teachers Reported Spending:
Appendix III: Arts Education Requirements and Funding, by State, School
Years 2001-2002 and 2006-2007:
Appendix IV: Studies Meeting GAO's Criteria for Methodological Quality:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Time Line for Implementing Interventions for Schools That Do
Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress:
Table 2: Percentage of Teachers across All Schools Reporting Whether
Instruction Time Had Changed between the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 School
Years, by Subject:
Table 3: Percentage of Elementary Schools Teachers Reporting Whether
Arts Education Instruction Time Had Changed between the 2004-2005 and
2006-2007 School Years, by School Characteristic:
Table 4: Mean Decrease in the Amount of Instruction Time Spent on Arts
Education among Teachers Reporting a Decrease from School Year 2004-
2005 to 2006-2007:
Table 5: Number of States with Arts Education Requirements in School
Years 2001-2002 and 2006-2007:
Table 6: Number of States with Funding for Arts Education in School
Years 2001-2002 and 2006-2007:
Table 7: Sources of Funding for State Arts Education between School
Years 2001-2002 and 2006-2007:
Table 8: Of States That Had Funding in Both School Years 2001-2002 and
2006-2007, Number of States with Changes in Funding for Arts Education
and Number Where Funding Stayed about the Same:
Table 9: Number of States Identifying Factors That Contributed to
Change in Funding of Arts Education between School Years 2001-2002 and
2006-2007:
Table 10: Criteria for Selecting School Districts and Schools:
Abbreviations:
AEP: Arts Education Partnership:
AYP: adequate yearly progress:
CEP: Center on Education Policy:
CPS: Chicago Public Schools:
ERIC: Education Resources Information Center:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
IASA: Improving America's Schools Act of 1994:
NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
NEA: National Endowment for the Arts:
NLS-NCLB: National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind:
SEAS: Student Enrichment in the Arts program:
SES: supplemental education services:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 27, 2009:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Alexander:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Children and Families:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The federal government has invested billions of dollars in federal
grants to states and school districts to improve educational
opportunities for low-income students because their academic
performance is substantially lower than that of other students. The No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) sought to address this issue by
building on the proficiency targets required by the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) and by establishing a deadline of 2014 for
all students to reach proficiency in reading, math, and science. Under
NCLBA, districts and schools must demonstrate adequate yearly progress
(AYP) toward meeting state standards for all students and every key
student subgroup, including low-income and minority students, students
with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency,
toward annual state-established proficiency targets. When students in
schools receiving funds under Title I of NCLBA do not make sufficient
progress toward meeting state proficiency targets, their schools are
identified as needing improvement, and both districts and schools are
required to take certain actions.
Schools' efforts to improve students' academic performance and the
school's NCLBA status can lead to changes in the amount of instruction
time devoted to reading, math, and other subjects, including arts
education. With NCLBA's 2014 deadline approaching, increased attention
has been focused on the amount of time teachers are able to devote to
other subjects, including the arts, which for this study includes four
art forms: visual arts, music, theater, and dance. To the extent that
schools spend more time improving students' reading, math, and science
skills to meet NCLBA's accountability requirements, some are concerned
that arts education might be reduced or eliminated.
To determine whether there have been any changes in student access to
arts education since NCLBA, the Congress asked us to examine the
following questions: (1) has the amount of instruction time for arts
education changed and, if so, have certain groups been more affected
than others, (2) to what extent have state education agencies'
requirements and funding for arts education changed since NCLBA, (3)
what are school officials in selected districts doing to provide arts
education since NCLBA and what challenges do they face in doing so, and
(4) what is known about the effect of arts education in improving
student outcomes?
To identify changes in students' access to arts education, if any, we
analyzed data on changes in instruction time between school years 2004-
2005 and 2006-2007 for all subjects, including the arts, from the
Department of Education's (Education) National Longitudinal Study of No
Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB).[Footnote 1] Because this study collected
data on changes in instruction time only from elementary school
teachers, the nationally representative findings on students' access to
arts education apply only to elementary schools. Although NLS-NCLB data
did not allow us to answer the study question for middle and secondary
schools, they were the only existing data on changes in instruction
time available that met GAO's data quality standards. Our findings also
apply only to the time between school years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 and
not to the full period of time since NCLBA's passage. As a further step
in identifying changes in students' access to arts education by
identifying any changes in state arts education requirements and
funding, we surveyed arts officials in 49 states and the District of
Columbia.[Footnote 2] For the survey, an arts official was an official
in a state department of education or other designated state agency who
was knowledgeable about the states' role in shaping the provision of
arts education in public schools. Forty-five state arts officials
completed the survey. The survey collected data on state arts education
requirements and funding in school years 2001-2002, the year NCLBA was
passed, and 2006-2007, changes made to state arts education
requirements and funding between those school years, and factors
contributing to any changes. To determine what district officials and
school principals are doing to provide arts education since NCLBA and
the challenges they face, we visited and interviewed officials in
Illinois, Massachusetts, Florida, and New York. We selected states with
large numbers of schools not meeting AYP and school districts and
schools based on criteria that provide variation in the income level of
the school district, schools' performance status under NCLBA, and
schools' urban and rural location. Within each state, we visited 2
school districts and 4 to 6 schools in each district for a total of 8
school districts and 19 schools. In each state, we also interviewed
officials representing at least one local arts organization that
supported arts education in public schools. To determine what is known
about the effect of arts instruction, we reviewed existing studies that
examined the effect of arts instruction on student outcomes, such as
academic achievement and graduation rates. Appendix I provides a
detailed description of our methodology and its limitations, as well as
our scope. We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to
February 2009, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Most elementary school teachers--about 90 percent--reported that
instruction time for arts education remained the same between school
years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. The percentage of teachers that reported
that instruction time had stayed the same was similarly high across a
range of school characteristics, irrespective of the schools'
percentage of low-income or minority students or of students with
limited English proficiency, or the schools' improvement under NCLBA.
Moreover, about 4 percent of teachers reported an increase. However,
about 7 percent reported a decrease, and we identified statistically
significant differences across school characteristics in the percentage
of teachers reporting that the time spent on arts education had
decreased. Specifically, teachers at schools identified as needing
improvement and those with higher percentages of minority students were
more likely to report a reduction in time spent on the arts. In
addition, when we examined the average amount of change in weekly
instruction time among teachers that reported either an increase or a
decrease, we found that teachers at elementary schools with high
percentages of low-income or minority students reported larger average
reductions than teachers at schools with low percentages of these
students.[Footnote 3] For example, teachers reporting decreases in arts
education time at schools with a high percentage of low-income students
reported an average decrease of 49 minutes per week while teachers
reporting decreases in arts education time at schools with lower
percentages of these students reported an average decrease of 31
minutes per week. Because Education's NLS-NCLB survey did not include
questions for the teachers to identify why instruction time for arts
education decreased at their school, we could not explore the reasons
that might explain some of the disparities we identified in our
analysis of the data. A new study of NCLBA implementation that
Education plans to undertake may collect information on the uses of
instruction time, among other topics. However, Education has not yet
determined if it will collect information on the reasons instruction
time changed for certain groups.
While basic state requirements for arts education in schools have
stayed about the same in most states, state funding levels for arts
education increased in some states and decreased in others, according
to our survey of state arts officials. Basic state education
requirements for arts education in schools--such as the number of hours
a week that the arts must be taught or the number of courses that must
be taken--have remained constant in most states since NCLBA was
implemented. Of the 45 states that responded to our survey, 34 states
had established the basic requirement that arts education be taught,
and 28 states had included arts education as a high school graduation
requirement by school year 2001-2002. By school year 2006-2007, most of
these states had retained these requirements. While basic requirements
for arts education remained nearly unchanged, state funding for arts
education changed, with some states reporting decreases, and others
reporting increases or funding levels that stayed about the same. For
example, of the 32 states that awarded arts education grants in both
school years 2001-2002 and 2006-2007, funding decreased in 12 states
and increased in 5 states. Arts education officials attributed the
increases or decreases in funding to state budget changes to a greater
extent than they did to NCLBA or other factors.
District officials and school principals have used several strategies
to provide arts education; however, some struggled with decreased
budgets and competing demands on instruction time, according to
officials we interviewed. School principals that have been able to
maintain arts education have used several strategies, including varying
when the arts are offered, seeking funding and collaborative
arrangements in the arts community, and integrating the arts into other
subjects. For example, at one Boston school, the principal had
eliminated arts education classes during the school day and purchased
an after school arts program in drama and music production from an
outside organization.
On the other hand, to ensure that students could attend arts education
during the school day, one New York City school principal added an
additional period to the end of the day to provide remedial instruction
to students who required additional help. To expose his students to
different international musical styles, one Broward County social
studies teacher played music from other countries during geography
lessons. Officials we met with told us that the main challenges to
providing arts education have been decreased state or local funding and
competing demands on instruction time due to requirements established
by the state education agency or school district in order to meet NCLBA
proficiency standards, such as doubling the amount of time low-
performing students spend on reading and math. For example, at one
school, the principal could not afford a full-time art teacher when the
school's budget was reduced. In addition, some officials said that
requirements established to meet NCLBA proficiency standards affected
the time available for certain subjects. For example, at several
schools, officials said that students not meeting state proficiency
requirements could be pulled from art class to attend a remedial class
in reading or math. Moreover, district officials and school principals
told us that when trade-offs involving funding or instruction time had
to be made, the school principal made the decision, and that
principals' decisions differed. For example, some principals chose not
to spend their limited discretionary funds on arts education, while
other principals, even when their school had been identified as needing
improvement several times, maintained their arts offerings.
Overall, research on the association between arts education and student
outcomes is inconclusive. Some studies that examined the association
between arts education and students' reading and math achievement found
a small positive relationship, but others found none. For example, one
study that combined the findings of several studies found that music
education in elementary or high school had a small positive
relationship with standardized math test scores. However, another
similarly constructed study found that arts education had no
significant relationship with standardized reading and math test
scores. While some of the research on arts education has focused on
special populations, such as students from low-income families, these
studies did not meet GAO's criteria for methodological quality, and
their findings were questionable.
To help identify factors that may contribute to changes in access to
arts education for certain student subgroups, we are recommending that
the Secretary of Education require that the department's planned study
of NCLBA implementation include questions in its surveys asking survey
respondents to describe the reasons for any changes in instruction time
they report.
Background:
Since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA), more than 40 years ago, the Congress has sought to improve
student learning through several initiatives. Current legislation,
NCLBA, builds upon previous legislation--the IASA--by adding provisions
meant to strengthen accountability requirements for school districts
and schools.[Footnote 4] For example, both IASA and NCLBA required
states to measure the performance of students in reading and math.
NCLBA built upon this requirement by requiring annual testing in these
subjects in each of grades 3 to 8 and added requirements that
children's performance in science also be assessed.
Under NCLBA's accountability provisions, states are required to develop
plans that include academic standards and establish performance goals
for schools' meeting AYP that would lead to 100 percent of their
students being proficient in reading, mathematics, and science by 2014.
[Footnote 5] To measure their progress, states were required to
establish academic proficiency goals for making AYP and to administer
an annual assessment to students in most grade levels.[Footnote 6] In
addition, each school's assessment data must be disaggregated in order
to compare the achievement levels of students within certain designated
groups, including low-income and minority students, students with
disabilities, and those with limited English proficiency, with the
state's proficiency targets. Each of these groups must make AYP in
order for the school to make AYP. In addition to proficiency targets on
state assessments, states must use another academic indicator to
determine AYP. For high schools, the indicator must be graduation
rates. States may choose what the other academic indicator will be for
elementary and middle schools.
Title I of the ESEA, as amended and reauthorized by NCLBA, authorizes
federal funds to help elementary and secondary schools establish and
maintain programs that will improve the educational opportunities of
economically disadvantaged children[Footnote 7] For schools receiving
Title I funds that do not achieve proficiency, a time line is required
for implementing specific interventions based on the number of years
the school missed AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP in reading,
mathematics, or science for 2 consecutive years, districts must offer
students in these schools the opportunity to transfer to a higher
performing school in the district, and after the third year they must
offer both school choice and supplemental education services (SES),
such as tutoring. Prior legislation--IASA--required districts to take
corrective action as a final intervention for schools that repeatedly
missed AYP. While IASA allowed states to determine the appropriate
corrective action for their districts and schools, NCLBA is more
prescriptive in defining the corrective actions districts and schools
must implement. In addition, a new intervention to change the
governance of schools--school restructuring--was introduced for schools
that miss AYP for 5 or more years. (See table 1.) Districts are
responsible for selecting and implementing the corrective actions and
restructuring options for these schools contained in the law. Schools
exit improvement status if they make AYP for 2 consecutive years.
Table 1: Time Line for Implementing Interventions for Schools That Do
Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress:
Adequate yearly progress: First year missed;
School status in the next year: Not applicable;
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: None.
Adequate yearly progress: Second year missed;
School status in the next year: Needs improvement (first year of
improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer public
school choice[A].
Adequate yearly progress: Third year missed;
School status in the next year: Needs improvement (second year of
improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Required to offer public
school choice and SES.
Adequate yearly progress: Fourth year missed;
School status in the next year: Corrective action (third year of
improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Implement certain corrective
actions and offer public school choice and SES.
Adequate yearly progress: Fifth year missed;
School status in the next year: Planning for restructuring (fourth year
of improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Plan for a change in
governance and offer public school choice and SES[B].
Adequate yearly progress: Sixth year missed;
School status in the next year: Implementation of restructuring (fifth
year of improvement);
NCLBA interventions for Title I schools: Implement a change in
governance and offer public school choice and SES.
Sources: GAO analysis of NCLBA and Education's regulations.
[A] At this stage, the school must also develop the school improvement
plan.
[B] While NCLBA does not require that corrective actions must be
continued after a school enters restructuring, Education officials
noted that, in practice, many schools continue corrective actions after
entering restructuring status.
[End of table]
In prior work on implementation of NCLBA, GAO reported that the Title I
schools in corrective action and restructuring status during school
year 2005-2006 were more frequently located in urban school districts
and a few states and served higher percentages of low-income, minority,
and middle school students than other Title I schools.[Footnote 8]
NCLBA Provisions and Funding Related to Arts Education in Public
Schools:
In its last two reauthorizations of the ESEA, the Congress has
recognized the importance of arts education in public schools. Although
the NCLBA does not include proficiency requirements for the arts, it
does authorize Education to make grants for arts education. The purpose
of these programs as set out in NCLBA includes helping students meet
state academic achievement standards in the arts and supporting "the
national effort to enable all students to demonstrate competence in the
arts." In addition, arts education is identified by NCLBA as a core
academic subject. Similarly, the Congress stated in IASA that the arts
express "forms of understanding and ways of knowing that are
fundamentally important to education." This finding incorporates the
two prevailing perspectives on the role that arts education can play in
public schools. One perspective sees arts education as having intrinsic
value because of the insights into self and others that experiencing
the arts can yield. A second perspective focuses on the association
between arts education and development of cognitive, affective, and
creative skills, including improved achievement in academic subjects
such as reading and math. While NCLBA does not attempt to address these
perspectives, it does affirm that arts education has a role in public
schools.
Education administers a number of specific programs related to arts
education, but two arts education grant programs authorized by NCLBA--
the Model Development and Dissemination grants program and the
Professional Development for Arts Educators program--are competitive
grant programs that provide funding for arts education research
projects that integrate arts disciplines into public school curricula,
strengthen arts instruction, and improve students' academic performance
and funding for art teachers' professional development, respectively.
Total funding for these two programs in the last few years was $21.1
million in fiscal year 2006, $21 million in fiscal year 2007 and $20.7
million in fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 9]
Research on Arts Education in Public Schools:
Prior to passage of NCLBA, the National Endowment for the Arts twice
collaborated with Education to determine the extent to which public
schools offer arts education in the four major art forms: visual arts,
music, theater, and dance. Through surveys of school principals and
teachers that Education conducted in school years 1993-1994 and 1999-
2000, Education found that visual arts and music were offered by 80 to
90 percent of public elementary and secondary schools, while theater
and dance were offered by a smaller fraction--fewer than half.
Education plans to conduct another such survey in school year 2009-
2010. Education sponsored the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) arts assessment of students in the eighth grade during
school year 1996-1997, which reported the frequency of arts offerings
by art form, and how well public school students could respond to,
create, and perform works of visual art, music, and theatre. Known as
the NAEP 1997 Arts Report Card, the study report was issued in November
1998.[Footnote 10] The assessment found that a high percentage of
eighth grade students were offered music and visual arts in the schools
they attended, but that instruction in theater and dance was more
limited. Students' performance ranged from 78 percent who sang the song
"America" rhythmically to 1 percent who created expressive collages.
Two other studies focused primarily on NCLBA implementation but also
included analyses of changes in instruction time for all subjects,
including arts education. One study, reported in Choices, Changes, and
Challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era, sponsored by
the Center on Education Policy (CEP) and issued in July 2007, asked
school district officials in school year 2006-2007 whether instruction
time for individual subjects, including arts education, had changed
since school year 2001-2002 when NCLB was enacted.[Footnote 11] The CEP
study reported that 30 percent of school districts reported that
instruction time for arts education in elementary schools had decreased
since NCLBA was enacted. NLS-NCLB, also sponsored by Education,
collected data in school years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 to describe
major patterns in state, district, and school implementation of NCLBA's
central accountability provisions, including changes in instruction
time. To address study question 1 in our report concerning changes in
students' access to arts education, if any, we analyzed the data on
changes in instruction time and other school characteristics collected
from elementary school teachers and principals during school year 2006-
2007 by the NLS-NCLB.[Footnote 12]
Education plans to undertake a new study, which is expected to build on
previous research, including the NLS-NCLB study, to continue to examine
NCLBA implementation issues. Among a broad range of topics the planned
study likely will explore are the uses of instruction time for all
academic subjects. Education expects to award a contract for the study
in September 2009 and begin data collection in the 2011-2012 school
year.
Overall Time Spent on Arts Education Changed Little between the 2004-
2005 and 2006-2007 School Years, but Decreases Were More Likely at Some
Schools and the Reasons for the Differences Are Uncertain:
Most elementary school teachers--90 percent--reported that instruction
time for arts education stayed the same between the 2004-2005 and 2006-
2007 school years. The percentage of teachers that reported that
instruction time had stayed the same was similarly high across a range
of school characteristics, irrespective of the schools' percentage of
low-income or minority students or of students with limited English
proficiency, or the schools' improvement under NCLBA. However, 7
percent of the teachers reported a reduction in the time spent on arts
education. Moreover, when we looked at teacher responses across a range
of school characteristics, we found some significant differences in the
percentages of teachers reporting that the time spent on arts education
had decreased and in the average amount of time that instruction had
been reduced. In contrast, among teachers reporting increases in
instruction time for the arts, we found no differences across different
types of schools. Because Education's survey did not include questions
for teachers to indicate why instruction time decreased at their
school, in our analysis of Education's data, we were unable to identify
factors that might help explain some of the apparent disparities in
instruction time suggested by our findings.
Teachers at Schools Identified as Needing Improvement and Those with a
Higher Percentage of Minority Students Were More Likely to Report a
Decrease in the Amount of Time Spent on Arts Education:
According to Education's data, the vast majority of elementary school
teachers surveyed reported that the amount of weekly instruction time
spent across all subjects, including arts education, stayed the same in
the 2006-2007 school year compared with the 2004-2005 school year.
[Footnote 13] Table 2 shows that about 89.8 percent of elementary
school teachers reported that instruction time spent on arts education
did not change between these school years, while about 3.7 percent
reported the time had increased compared with about 6.6 percent that
reported it had decreased. The percentage of teachers that reported
increases in instruction time was higher for reading/language arts and
mathematics than for other subjects, which is understandable since
these were the two subjects for which the NCLBA held schools
accountable for demonstrating student proficiency at that time. In
contrast, the percentage of teachers that reported decreases in
instruction time was higher for social studies and science than for
other subjects, including arts education, even though the NCLBA
required schools to begin testing student proficiency in science in the
2007-2008 school year.
Table 2: Percentage of Teachers across All Schools Reporting Whether
Instruction Time Had Changed between the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 School
Years, by Subject:
Subject: Art/music;
Increased: 3.7;
Stayed the same: 89.8;
Decreased: 6.6;
Total: 100.
Subject: Physical education/health;
Increased: 5.5;
Stayed the same: 88.1;
Decreased: 6.4;
Total: 100.
Subject: Social studies/history;
Increased: 4.0;
Stayed the same: 82.8;
Decreased: 13.1;
Total: 100.
Subject: Science;
Increased: 5.6;
Stayed the same: 82.0;
Decreased: 12.4;
Total: 100.
Subject: Mathematics;
Increased: 18.1;
Stayed the same: 77.8;
Decreased: 4.1;
Total: 100.
Subject: Reading/language arts;
Increased: 21.9;
Stayed the same: 75.4;
Decreased: 2.7;
Total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
Note: Percentages across columns may not add to 100 percent due to
rounding.
[End of table]
When we looked at teacher responses across a range of school
characteristics--including percentage of low-income and minority
students and students with limited English proficiency, as well as
improvement status, as indicated in table 3--we found no differences
across characteristics in the percentages of teachers reporting that
the time spent on arts education had increased. However, there were
some significant differences across characteristics in the percentages
of teachers reporting that the time spent on arts education had
decreased, as shown in table 3. Elementary school teachers at schools
identified as needing improvement, those at schools with higher
percentages of minority students, and those at schools with higher
percentages of students with limited English speaking skills, were
significantly more likely to report a decrease in the amount of time
spent on arts education compared with teachers at other schools. We
might also point out that the vast majority of teachers reported that
instruction time stayed the same, irrespective of their schools'
percentage of low-income or minority students or students with limited
English proficiency, or the schools' improvement status under NCLBA.
Table 3: Percentage of Elementary Schools Teachers Reporting Whether
Arts Education Instruction Time Had Changed between the 2004-2005 and
2006-2007 School Years, by School Characteristic:
School characteristic: Percentage of low-income students[A]: Schools
with 75% or more;
Increased: 3;
Stayed the same: 88;
Decreased: 9.
School characteristic: Percentage of low-income students[A]: Schools
with 35% or less;
Increased: 4;
Stayed the same: 89;
Decreased: 7.
School characteristic: Percentage of minority students[B]: Schools with
75% or more;
Increased: 6;
Stayed the same: 84;
Decreased: 10*.
School characteristic: Percentage of minority students[B]: Schools with
less than 25%;
Increased: 3;
Stayed the same: 91;
Decreased: 6*.
School characteristic: Percentage of students with limited English
proficiency: Schools with greater than 5%;
Increased: 4;
Stayed the same: 88;
Decreased: 8*.
School characteristic: Percentage of students with limited English
proficiency: Schools with 0%;
Increased: 3;
Stayed the same: 92;
Decreased: 4*.
School characteristic: Improvement status[C]: Schools identified for
improvement;
Increased: 3;
Stayed the same: 86;
Decreased: 11*.
School characteristic: Improvement status[C]: Schools not identified
for improvement;
Increased: 4;
Stayed the same: 90;
Decreased: 6*.
School characteristic: School location[D]: Urban;
Increased: 4;
Stayed the same: 88;
Decreased: 7.
School characteristic: School location[D]: Rural;
Increased: 3;
Stayed the same: 92;
Decreased: 6.
Legend:
* = differences in percentage of teachers reporting a decrease were
statistically significant (p